TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses premature bail application, emphasizes caution on arrest powers. No notice needed before action.</h1> <h3>Vijay Verma Versus State & Anr</h3> Vijay Verma Versus State & Anr - 2016 (333) E.L.T. 25 (Del.) Issues:Application for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in proceedings initiated by the Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The applicant, a director of a company, sought bail due to alleged outstanding service tax dues and threats of arrest. The applicant claimed he joined the company in 2012 and made efforts to pay off dues, depositing substantial amounts. He resigned in 2014, transferring liability to the company with appointed oversight. The respondent alleged non-cooperation, non-payment of service tax, and misappropriation, initiating recovery actions. The respondent argued the gravity of the offense, emphasizing the non-depositing of collected taxes. The court noted the serious nature of economic offenses and cited precedents highlighting the community's interest in prosecuting economic offenders.The respondent opposed the bail application, citing the applicant's alleged involvement in misappropriation of government funds. The respondent highlighted non-cooperation during investigations, non-appearance in response to summons, and the company's outstanding service tax liability. The respondent emphasized the applicant's role in finance and non-depositing of collected taxes, indicating a prima facie case of non-payment. The respondent argued that the applicant's resignation and transfer of responsibility were not valid, as the applicant still held crucial company records and failed to cooperate in investigations.The court dismissed the bail application as premature, citing the absence of an arrest order and the need for caution in exercising arrest powers. Referring to circulars and legal precedents, the court held that no notice for arrest was required before taking action. The court emphasized that the application was premature and ordered the vacating of interim protection granted earlier. The decision was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the lack of an imminent arrest threat, and the legal principles regarding arrest procedures and anticipatory bail applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
